GuestGuest Advertisement

Having a sin bin forum doesn't strike me as a very good idea. Anybody who was put in there would probably spend their time bitching about how they have been treated unfairly, complaining about the moderators, saying what a terrible site sciforums is, and so on. If they've clocked up enough warnings to get a ban, there's good reason to exclude them from the forum all together for a while so they can think things over. (Although, having said that, real problem posters don't tend to change their ways, in my experience.)

I'm not so sure. I've seen some members here post offensive insults directed at other people, only to go back a few minutes later and delete them. They know the person who they are arguing with will see the post, but they calculate that the moderators won't necessarily see it if they are quick enough and time it right.

GuestGuest Advertisement

On conjecture if people in the hard science section left because of wankers, couldn't there also be another tool of moderation to suspend offending members from a section for a period of time before a suspension from the entire board is handed out?

I'm not so sure. I've seen some members here post offensive insults directed at other people, only to go back a few minutes later and delete them. They know the person who they are arguing with will see the post, but they calculate that the moderators won't necessarily see it if they are quick enough and time it right.

Click to expand...

Sure. It's not going to be 100%; any system can be gamed. But those incidents are few and far between. They are not a reason not to implement a such a plan.

I'm not so sure. I've seen some members here post offensive insults directed at other people, only to go back a few minutes later and delete them. They know the person who they are arguing with will see the post, but they calculate that the moderators won't necessarily see it if they are quick enough and time it right.

Click to expand...

I would think if someone posted something, had time to think about it, and went back and corrected it that that would be a good thing. I may be wrong, but it seems a bit too cynical to assume that it was done to piss off a member and to evade a moderator.

KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

I would think if someone posted something, had time to think about it, and went back and corrected it that that would be a good thing. I may be wrong, but it seems a bit too cynical to assume that it was done to piss off a member and to evade a moderator.

It's kind of sad, that the internet brings out such a side of folk. I really doubt many of the more egregious offenders here would ever talk the way they do here if they were face to face.

Click to expand...

I agree and to a degree I also agree with that behavior. Not the behavior of those individuals that we could probably agree upon but sometimes on any forum posters will say "you wouldn't say that to me in person" or "you wouldn't say that to my face".

That might be true. Things you say to someone's face are often more offensive then if you say it to them online. It's not as personal, they are anonymous. It's like talking about friends behind their backs. That's the way to talk about friends!

I would think if someone posted something, had time to think about it, and went back and corrected it that that would be a good thing. I may be wrong, but it seems a bit too cynical to assume that it was done to piss off a member and to evade a moderator.

Click to expand...

Speaking from my own experience, I can testify that on many occasions I have given an intemperate riposte which on reflection I realised was either out of order or likely to provoke an unhelpful reaction, so I have gone back and altered it.

It is a characteristic of the real-time nature of internet communication that people's off the cuff reactions get captured, in a way they would not if they were, say, writing a letter for publication in a newspaper.

In fact, this is one of the principal curses of modern IT: too much focus on immediacy and not enough on quality.

Speaking from my own experience, I can testify that on many occasions I have given an intemperate riposte which on reflection I realised was either out of order or likely to provoke an unhelpful reaction, so I have gone back and altered it.

It is a characteristic of the real-time nature of internet communication that people's off the cuff reactions get captured, in a way they would not if they were, say, writing a letter for publication in a newspaper.

In fact, this is one of the principal curses of modern IT: too much focus on immediacy and not enough on quality.

Click to expand...

That's why I like forums that let you edit for an indefinite period of time. I type fast and attempt to read what I have just written before I press the "send" button but sometimes I'll miss typos.

If someone responds to one of my posts and I notice that it had a typo, even if it's the next day, I'll still go back and correct that and anything that appears to be a grammatical mistake. It may not be important and people generally still know what you meant but it still bugs me.

When I'm speaking I would never make a grammatical mistake so I don't like to see it in my writing either.

Given the run on sentences and "creative" grammar I see in the posts of many others, I guess it's not viewed as being very important these day?

That's why I like forums that let you edit for an indefinite period of time. I type fast and attempt to read what I have just written before I press the "send" button but sometimes I'll miss typos.

If someone responds to one of my posts and I notice that it had a typo, even if it's the next day, I'll still go back and correct that and anything that appears to be a grammatical mistake. It may not be important and people generally still know what you meant but it still bugs me.

When I'm speaking I would never make a grammatical mistake so I don't like to see it in my writing either.

Given the run on sentences and "creative" grammar I see in the posts of many others, I guess it's not viewed as being very important these day?

I do exactly as you, on forums that permit it. It's a bit lazy: I should proof-read them better before posting, but it seems still preferable to make any typo corrections later, for the sake of clarity, than to leave them.

I do exactly as you, on forums that permit it. It's a bit lazy: I should proof-read them better before posting, but it seems still preferable to make any typo corrections later, for the sake of clarity, than to leave them.

Click to expand...

I correct typos er ... post-posting as well. I just need to see my post in its final, final form. It's a habit of software development. Never ever trust a piece of software to do what you intended.

I often go back and delete iffy stuff I've posted. It is with no malicious intent that I edit after-the-fact. My posts are often written as I'm processing, and it is afterward that I soften and decide those aren't the words I really mean.

That doesn't discount the possibility that the incidents you mention are still malicious, but it discounts the idea that all of them are malicious.

And again, I don't see this as being a reason to not implement a plan of deleting posts that contain damaging content.

Edit-I just looked at the voting. Most people voted just to moderate name-calling. The bad news is that the results of the entire poll includes the opinion of only 5 people. That might be the larger issue here.

To be blunt... Possibly. I'm rather curious how many actual, active, non-bot members we have that actually post things...

Click to expand...

I think the more informative way to view the site from the point of view of owners/moderators/people who would like for the site to always be improving would be to compare what you perceive the site to be able/what you want it to be about to what you see each day when you push the "new posts" button and you read those titles.

When you do that you will see why there isn't a broad based interest to contribute by posting.

KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

I think the more informative way to view the site from the point of view of owners/moderators/people who would like for the site to always be improving would be to monitor what you perceive the site to be able/what you want it to be about and then review each day the subject matter of the titles once you push the "new posts" button.

When you do that you will see why there is a broad based interest to contribute by posting.